- 407 -

Determination of Liquefaction Potential

of Soil Using (N
1
)
60
by Numerical
Modeling Method


Gholam Moradi
Assistant professor
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Email: gmoradi@tabrizu.ac.ir

Behnam Rahro Khatibi, Mehdi Hosseinzade Sutubadi
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Email: behnam.rahro@gmail.com
mhsc60@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
One of the important design considerations for structures situated on sand deposits is the
potential for instability caused by the development of excess pore pressure as a result of
earthquake loading. A build-up of excess pore pressure may lead to initial liquefaction. In the
present study, an alluvium with saturated sand was simulated in FLAC software. Three types
of soil mass with various primary condensation (loose, medium dense and dense) were used.
Parameter (N
1
)
60
was defined to the software as a main soil property to calculate the other soil
parameters such as internal friction angle, relative density, etc. As dynamic loading,
acceleration time histories of three earthquakes with various magnitudes (low, medium and
high) were applied to the model. To examine pore water pressure variation in the soil mass
during the earthquake loading, the parameter r
u
was defined for the software by a Fish
function. r
u
is the pore water pressure ratio, which equals the pore water pressure increment
divided by the primary effective stress in soil. The results showed that FLAC can identify the
regions with liquefaction potential by calculation of generated excess pore pressure during
earthquake loading. Time histories of r
u
showed that liquefaction potential in the soil mass
changes with depth variations.
KEYWORDS: Liquefaction Potential, FLAC, Standard Penetration Test, Pore Water
Pressure Ratio, Dynamic Loading.

I NTRODUCTI ON
When earthquake loading is applied to saturated sand deposits, pore water pressure in the soil
starts to increase leading that the soil strength is lost. Liquefaction is the ultimate appearance of
this phenomenon (Liyanathirana D.S. and Poulos H.G. 2002). At the initiation of soil
Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 408

liquefaction, the effective stress in the soil becomes zero and pore pressure in the soil becomes
equal to the initial confining pressure of the soil mass. During past earthquakes, liquefaction
induced displacements have caused serious damages to marine structures (such as quay walls,
piers, breakwater, etc.). Therefore, the prediction of liquefaction is the main concern for
structures located in medium to high seismicity regions (Jafarian et al. 2010). Field experience
during past earthquakes (Youd et al. 2001) shows that liquefaction has generally occurred at
depths less than 15 m, and recently, some dynamic centrifuge model testing (Steedman et al.
2000) proposes a depth on the occurrence of liquefaction.
Although simplified methods (Seed and Idriss, 1971) are available in calculating the
liquefaction potential of a soil mass, these methods cant be applied to all earthquakes with the
same accuracy. In addition, they cant predict the pore pressure developed in the soil due to
earthquake loading. Therefore, it is necessary to implement a numerical simulation to obtain pore
water pressures and shear stresses in the soil due to earthquake loading. The numerical simulation
of liquefaction is essential in understanding the liquefaction mechanism. To perform the
simulation, an applicable constitutive model of saturated soils and a suitable formulation of
numerical method for the two-phase coupled problem are required.
Numerical simulation performed by Shun-gun Li et al. (2010) shows that the cusp
catastrophe model can simulate increment of excess pore water pressure and occurrence of
liquefaction due to earthquake loading. This model can predict pore water pressure increment and
liquefaction potential. Presented results by Jafarian et al. (2010) show that numerical simulation
of liquefaction can predict both excess pore water pressure and displacements of marine
structures. Therefore, implementation of numerical simulation is necessary for examination of
liquefaction potential. Their numerical analysis was performed by FLAC software.
In this paper liquefaction potential of saturated sandy soil is studied. For this purpose, an
alluvium with saturated sand is simulated in FLAC software using Finn constitutive model. The
effect of soil densification and magnitude of earthquake loading (as a dynamic loading) in
liquefaction potential of the soil and level (or depth) of liquefied regions in the soil mass is
considered. Furthermore, the effect of depth variation on liquefaction potential is studied by
definition of time histories of r
u
in various points of the soil mass. Generally, it is tried to simulate
liquefaction phenomenon in FLAC using parameter (N
1
)
60
as a main factor for soil parameters
required to the software and identifying liquefiable regions in the soil mass.
THEORY AND PROCEDURE OF NUMERI CAL
MODELI NG
For modeling the soil mass with liquefaction potential, the FLAC software is used. The finite
difference method for analysis of soil mass is used in FLAC. Finn constitutive model is
considered as default in FLAC that facilitates the ability of soil modeling in liquefaction states.
Also, equivalent linear method (Seed and Idriss 1969) and Finn constitutive method are used.
With FLAC, the effects of pore water pressure with or without loss of pore water pressure can
be obtained. Also, the generation of pore water pressure can be calculated by considering the
irrecoverable volumetric strain on basic model Finn with dynamic option. In Finn constitutive
model, it is assumed that void ratio is constant, also it can be calculate as a function of volumetric
strain and other parameters can be defined by void ratio.
V

M
an equ
occur
the in
presum
w
B
w
cases,
U
(Boul
T
C
nume
A
simul
rock
1980)
Vol. 16 [ 20
Martin et al. (
uation linking
rred during th
ncrement of
med to be the
where C
1
, C
2
, C
Byrne (1991) p
where C
1
and
, C
2
= 0.4/C
1
,
Using an emp
langer 2004),
Then:
C
2
is then calc
rical simulati
D
A soil mass w
ation. In Figu
and both left
).
11] , Bund.
F
1975) propos
g the increme
hat particular
volume decr
e engineering
C
3
and C
4
are
proposed a m
C
2
are consta
, so Eq. (2) in
irical relation
(N
1
)
60
:
culated from
ion in Finn Co
Definit ion
with 30 mete
ure (1), the m
t and right b
. D
Finn Con
sed an effecti
ent of the vol
cycle. They
rease,
vd
, t
g shear strain

d
=
1
(
e constants.
modified and s

=
ants with diff
nvolves only o

1
n between D
r

1
C
2
= 0.4/C
1
onstitutive mo
n of Soil
ers height an
mesh model is
oundaries of
Figure 1:
st it ut ive
ve stress anal
umetric strain
supply the fo
to the cyclic
n:

2

d
) +
impler volum

1
exp _
2
fferent interpr
one independ
= 76uu(

-2
r
and the norm
= 1S(
1
)
60
1
2
,
= 8.7(
1
)
60
-1
in this case
odel in FLAC
Mass an
nd 400 meter
s shown. It is
the model h
The soil mass
Model
lysis approac
n per cycle of
following emp
c shear-strain
+

d
2
+
4

d

me change mo
_

]_
retations from
ent constant.
2.5
)
malized stand
2

0
1.25

. Parameter (
C.
nd Mesh
rs length is a
assumed that
have free-field
s mesh
ch. Their prop
f loading to t
pirical equati
n amplitude,

odel with two

m those of Eq

dard penetrati


(N
1
)
60
is the m
Model
assumed for
t the bed of th
d condition (
40
posed model
the shear strai
ion that relate
, where
(1
parameters:
(2
q. (1). In man
(S
ion test value
(4
(S
main factor o
the numerica
he soil mass
(Cundall et a
9
is
in
es
is
1)
2)
ny
S)
es
4)
S)
of
al
is
al.
Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 410

Then, the values of bulk modulus and water density and gravity are given to the program.
Next, the parameters of Finn model are defined by introducing (N
1
)
60
for all the regions of soil
mass. The software calculates the values of C
1
and C
2
for all the regions of soil mass.
Also the quantity of (N
1
)
60
is used to calculate the other soil parameters such as internal
friction angle, relative density and also the required parameters for the model to calculate
volumetric strains such as shear modulus and initial bulk modulus. The relationship between
these parameters with (N
1
)
60
is defined to the software by a Fish function. For example, for
determining the relative density (D
r
) with (N
1
)
60
, the Boulanger formula (2004) is used.
Also, internal friction angle is defined by Eq. (6):
= 1S.4 (
1
)
60
+ 18 (6)
Finally, Rayleigh damping is used for the model and relevant coefficients are given to the
software.
For observation of effective stress and pore water pressure variations, special time histories
are defined in some points of the mesh. These time histories are defined to the software by a Fish
function.
For observation of the earthquake magnitude, acceleration time history of three earthquakes
with low magnitude (Karebass earthquake with maximum acceleration 0.2g), average magnitude
(San Fernando earthquake with maximum acceleration 0.29g) and high magnitude (Bam
earthquake with maximum acceleration 0.42g) are used as dynamic loading for the soil mass.
EXAMI NATI ON OF THE RESULTS
To distinguish between liquefiable and non-liquefiable areas, parameter r
u
is defined. r
u
is the
pore water pressure ratio, which equals the pore water pressure increment divided by the primary
effective stress in soil. It is defined to the software by a Fish function.
Theoretically, if r
u
inclines to 1, effective stress inclines to zero and liquefaction should
occur. But r
u
=1 is only theoretic definition for liquefaction occurrence. Previously, it is
experienced that liquefaction phenomenon occurred at r
u
=0.93. Therefore in this research, if r
u

reaches a value greater than 0.9 liquefaction happens.
Examinat ion of Liquefact ion Pot ent ial of Soil Mass wit h
Various Condensat ions by Applying Karebass Eart hquake
As previously described, to introduce the soil condensation, parameter (N
1
)
60
is used.
According to Table (1) which is presented by Clayton et.al (1993), classification of soil regarding
(D
r
) and (N
1
)
60
is denoted. By use of this table, values of (N
1
)
60
equal to 8,15 and 25 are chosen.
V

F
earthq

In
pore
liquef
liquef
depth
F
part o
maxim
that re
in dep
maxim
G
and d
Vol. 16 [ 20
Cl
V
V
igure (2) sh
quake (Kareb
Figure
n Figure (2-A
water pressu
fied and aroun
fiable areas. F
hs 12 and 30m
igure (2-B) o
of it in that de
mum value of
egion with liq
pth of 30m
mum values o
Generally, Fig
ecrease of liq
11] , Bund.
Table 1: Rel
lassification
Very loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
Very dense
hows the ma
bass) (A-loose
2: Maximum
A), the soil ma
ure. Accordin
nd the region
Furthermore,
m.
obviously sho
pth reaches th
f r
u
is more th
quefaction po
is not liquef
of r
u
become s
gure (2) show
quefaction pot
. D
lationship bet
aximum value
e sand, B-med
m values of r
u
i
Kareb
ass in two va
ng to this fig
ns marked in p
this figure sh
ows that lique
he liquefactio
han 0.9 and th
otential is onl
fied at all. A
smaller (yello
ws that increa
tential in deep
tween (N
1
)
60
a
D
r
(%)
0 15
15 35
35 65
65 85
85 - 100

es of r
u
in
dium dense sa
in different d
bass earthquak
arious depths
gure, the soil
pink is on the
hows that loo
efied area in
on boundary.
herefore the so
y in depth of
Also it shows
ow color).
se of soil den
p area of the s
and soil cond
(N
1
)
60
soil mass in
and, C-dense
ensities of the
ke
have experie
around the
e boundary be
se sand is liq
depth of 30m
But in depth
oil mass is liq
f 12m from th
s that, in the
nsity leads to
soil mass.
densation
(blows/300mm
0 3
3 8
8 25
25 42
42 - 58
nduced by lo
sand).
e soil induced
enced maximu
regions mark
etween liquef
quefied in bot
m reduces and
of 12m in the
quefied. Figur
he surface and
e regions nea
o decrease of
41
m)
ow magnitud
d by
um increase i
ked in blue
fiable and non
th approximat
d only a sma
e soil mass, th
re (2-C) show
d the soil mas
ar the surfac
f liquefied are
1
de

in
is
n-
te
all
he
ws
ss
e,
ea
V

F
earthq
to Fig
in dep
sand,
liquef
Figure
In
liquef
F
(Bam
Fig
Vol. 16 [ 20
Examina
Variou
igure (3) sho
quake (San Fe
gure (2), Figu
pth of 12m.
a deep area
fied region in
e (3-B), the s
Figure 3:
n Figure (3-C
faction potent
Examina
Various
igure (4) show
m) (A-loose san
gure 4: Maxim
11] , Bund.
at ion of L
us Conde
ows the max
ernando) (A-l
ure (3-A) show
On the other
a of soil mas
n depth of 30
oil mass have
Maximum v
C) the area w
tial is approxi
at ion of L
s Conden
ws the maxim
nd, B-medium
mum values o
. D
Liquefact
ensat ions
Ear
imum values
loose sand, B
ws that liquef
r hand, by ap
ss has more
m reduces an
e liquefaction
alues of r
u
in
Fernan
ith liquefacti
imately in dep
Liquefact
nsat ions
mum values o
m dense sand
of r
u
in differe
t ion Pot e
s by App
rt hquake
s of r
u
in soi
B-medium den
fied area in d
pplying the m
liquefaction
nd liquefied r
n potential in b
different den
ndo earthquak
on potential
pth of 12m.
t ion Pot e
by Apply
of r
u
in soil m
, C-dense san
ent densities o
ent ial of S
plying Sa
e
il mass induc
nse sand, C-d
epth of 30m
medium magn
potential. In
region obviou
both depth of
nsities of the s
ke
in depth of 3
ent ial of S
ying Bam
mass induced b
nd).
of the soil ind
Soil Mass
an Fernan
ced by mediu
dense sand). O
is larger than
nitude earthq
Figure (3-B
usly is seen. O
f 12 and 30m.
soil induced b
30m reduces
Soil Mass
m Eart hq
by medium hi
duced by Bam
41
s wit h
ndo
um magnitud
On the contrar
n liquefied are
quake on loos
B), the area o
On contrary t

by San
and maximum
s wit h
uake
igh earthquak
m earthquake
2
de
ry
ea
se
of
to

m
ke
Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 413

According to Figure (4-A), approximately all the regions of the soil mass by applying high
magnitude earthquake is liquefied and on the contrary to Figure (2-A) and Figure (3-A), a specific
region cannot be distinguished as an area with liquefaction potential.
From Figure (4-B) it is seen that by increasing the soil density, liquefaction potential
decreases from bottom to top of the soil mass. In this figure on the contrary to previous figures,
only one liquefied region is seen. On the other hand, shallow regions of the soil mass have
maximum liquefaction potential.
In Figure (4-C) it is obviously seen that in depth of 12m there is maximum liquefaction
potential. However, by comparison with previous corresponding figures, larger area of the soil
mass is in the liquefaction boundaries.
General Result s From Above Figures
- In Figure (2) and Figure (3) which are related to low and medium magnitude earthquakes
respectively, the soil mass has maximum potential of liquefaction in two separated regions.
According to these figures, when soil densification increases, the area of liquefied region
decreases in depth of 30m.
- According to Figure (4), on the contrary to Figure (2) and Figure (3) in the soil mass with
applied high magnitude earthquake, only one specific region with liquefaction potential is seen.
- Comparing Figure (2) and Figure (3), shows no particular difference between liquefied
region area. It is due to the small difference between maximum accelerations of two earthquakes,
which are applied.
-All figures show that maximum potential of liquefaction in the soil mass is between depths
of 10 and 15m. This range of depth is similar to results of Seed and Idriss method (1971).
The Effect of Dept h Variat ions on Liquefact ion Pot ent ial of
Soil Mass
To examine the modeling exactness, several time histories are defined in various points of the
model mesh to score variations of soil parameters during earthquake loading (such as r
u
, effective
stress and pore water pressure). For example in this section, time history of r
u
in middle region of
the soil mass in depth of 10 and 20m is studied.
V

F

F
Vol. 16 [ 20
Figure 5: Tim
Figure 6: Tim
11] , Bund.
me history of r
me history of r
. D
r
u
in depth of
earth
r
u
in depth of
earth
10m related t
hquake loading
20m related t
hquake loading
to dense soil
g
to dense soil
g
induced by hi

induced by hi
41

igh magnitud
igh magnitud
4
de
de
Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 415

Both of two figures show that the soil mass has experienced maximum value of r
u
in tenth
second of earthquake loading. Maximum value and variations slope of r
u
in Figure (5) are more
than corresponding values in figure (6). It shows that liquefaction potential in low depth is more
than liquefaction potential in high depth. The maximum value of r
u
in Figure (5) is 0.93, it means
that soil mass in that point is liquefied, while maximum value of r
u
in figure (6) is 0.87 and the
soil mass is not liquefied in that point.
At both states, the final value of r
u
is 0.83 after peak point. In Figure (5), value of r
u
after tenth
second suddenly falls and it inclines to 0.83 with a lightly ascending slope. In figure (6), value of
r
u
after tenth second inclines to 0.83 with lightly descending slope.
Generally, if depth increases, less reduction occurs in effective stress and there will be less
increase in r
u
as well. On the other hand, minimum effective stress in depth of 20m is more than
corresponding value in depth of 10m. It shows that when depth increases, liquefaction potential
decreases.
CONCLUSI ON
Based on numerical results the following conclusion can be obtained.
1. Results show that Finn constitutive model can calculate excess pore pressure during
earthquake loading by measurement of irrecoverable volumetric strain. By introducing r
u
as a
liquefaction potential index, the liquefied regions are specified.
2. In the loose and medium dense sand with applied low and medium magnitude earthquake
loading, two separated regions with liquefaction potential are seen in depth of 12 and 30m. The
volume of liquefied region located in approximate depth of 30m is less than volume of liquefied
region in approximate depth of 12m.
3. In all types of soils (with various densities) by applying high magnitude earthquake
loading, only one area with liquefaction potential is seen. When soil condensation becomes high,
the liquefied region moves to the surface. This result shows that the effect of high magnitude
earthquake shows its effect in low depth of the soil mass.
4. During earthquake loading, in all types of the soils with various densities, liquefaction
potential in low depth is more than liquefaction potential in high depth.
5. Results show that variations slope of r
u
(or pore water pressure) in lower depth (10m) is
more than variation slope of r
u
in higher depth (20m). On the other hand, the soil mass near the
surface reaches sooner to the liquefaction state.
6. Schema of variations of r
u
in depth of 10m is different from variations of r
u
in depth of
20m. In depth of 10m, the value of r
u
after tenth second suddenly falls and it inclines to constant
value (0.83) with lightly ascending slope. In depth of 20m, value of r
u
after tenth second inclines
to constant value (0.83) with lightly descending slope.

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 416


REFERENCES
1. Boulanger, R. W. and Idriss, I. M (2004) State normalization of penetration resistances and
the effect of overburden stress on liquefaction resistance, Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, and 3rd Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, D. Doolin et al., eds., Stallion Press, Vol. 2, 484-491.
2. Byrne, P (1991) A Cyclic Shear-Volume Coupling and Pore-Pressure Model for Sand,
Second International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics (St. Louis, Missouri, March, 1991), No. 1.24, 47-55.
3. Cundall, P. A., H. Hansteen, S. Lacasse and P. B. Selnes (1980) NESSI Soil Structure
Interaction. Program for Dynamic and Static Problems, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute,
Report 51508-9.
4. Clayton, C. R. I., Milititsky, J and Woods, R. T (1993) Earth Pressure and Earth-Retaining
Structures, London: Blackie Academic & Professional.
5. Idriss, M., Boulanger, R. W (2004) Semi-Empirical Procedures For Evaluating Liquefaction
Potential During Earthquakes, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Davis, CA 95616-5924, 11th International Conference on Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, (ICSDEE), and The 3rd International Conference on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (ICEGE), Berkeley, California, USA.
6. Itasca Consulting Group Inc. (2000) FLAC, version 4.0. Itasca Consulting Group Inc.,
Minneapolis, Minn.
7. Jafarian, Y., Alielahi, H., Sadeghi, A. A. and Vakili, R (2010) "Seismic Numerical
Simulation of Breakwater on a Liquefiable Layer: IRAN LNG Port," Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 15.
8. Li, S.g., Chai, S.x., Ren, Q.x and Wang, Y.h (2010) "Prediction of Liquefaction Potential and
Pore Water Pressure due to Earthquake," Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 15.
9. Liyanathirana D.S. and Poulos H.G (2002) Numerical simulation of soil liquefaction due to
earthquake loading, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22, 511523
10. Martin, GR, WDL. Finn and HB. Seed (1975) Fundamentals of Liquefaction Under Cyclic
Loading, J. Geotech. Div. ASCE, 101(GT5), 423-438.
11. Seed, H. B., and I. Idriss (1969) Influence of Soil Conditions on Ground Motion During
Earthquakes, J. Soil Mech. Found., Div. ASCE, 95, 99-137.
12. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
potential, Jnl GED, ASCE, 97(9), 1249-1273.
Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 417

13. Steedman, R.S., Ledbetter, R.H., and Hynes, M.E (2000) The influence of high confining
stress on the cyclic behavior of saturated sand, In Soil Dynamics and Liquefaction 2000:
Proceedings of Sessions of Geo-Denver 2000, Denver, Colo., 58 Aug. 2000. Edited by
R.Y.S. Pak and J. Yamamuro. American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special
Publication 107, pp. 3557.
14. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn,
W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Jr., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson,
W.F., III, Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, R.K., Seed,
H.B., and Stokoe, K.H (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the
1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of
soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 127(10): 817
833.
2011 ejge